107 cancer papers retracted due to peer review fraud – Ars Technica

Enlarge / Pictured: Probably an editor who peer-reviewed stuff for Tumor Biology.

The journal Tumor Biology is retracting 107 research papers after discovering that the authors faked the peer review process. This isnt the journals first rodeo. Late last year, 58 paperswere retracted from seven different journals25 came fromTumor Biologyfor the same reason.

Its possible to fake peer review because authors are often asked to suggest potential reviewers for their own papers. This is donebecause research subjects are often blindingly niche; a researcher working in a sub-sub-field may be more aware than the journal editor of who is best-placed to assess the work.

But some journals go further and request, or allow,authors to submit the contact details of these potential reviewers. If the editor isnt aware of the potential for a scam, they then merrily send the requests for review out to fake e-mail addresses, often using the names of actual researchers. And at the other end of the fakee-mail address is someone whos in on the game and happy to sendin a friendly review.

Fake peer reviewers often know what a review looks like and know enough to make it look plausible, said Elizabeth Wager, editor of the journal Research Integrity & Peer Review. But they arent always good at faking less obvious quirks of academia: When a lot of the fake peer reviews first came up, one of the reasons the editors spotted them was that the reviewers responded on time, Wager told Ars. Reviewers almost always have to be chased, so this was the red flag. And in a few cases, both the reviews would pop up within a few minutes of each other.

Its not always the authors providing the reviews. "There is some evidence that so-called third-party language-editing services play a role in manipulating the reviewing process, said a spokesperson for Springer, the company thatpublished Tumor Biology until this year. Scientists who work in a language other than English may use editing services to polish their papersbefore submitting to a journal, and some of these services can be unethical and predatory, says Wager.

It might be naive, she says, but if the authors didn't realize that this is what the editing company was doing, then I feel the authors should have a fair chance. There's probably nothing wrong with the research; it just hasn't been peer reviewed. But of course, its difficult to assess whether the authors knew about it. It is unclear whether the authors of the manuscripts were aware that the agencies were proposing fabricated reviewer names/e-mail addresses, the Springer spokesperson told Ars.

This most recent avalanche of fake-reviewed papers was discovered because of extra screening at the journal. According to an official statement from Springer, the decision was made to screen new papers before they are released to production. The extra screening turned up the names of fake reviewers that hadnt previously been detected, and in order to clean up our scientific records, we will now start retracting these affected articles...Springer will continue to proactively investigate these issues.

Its best for editors not to rely on the contact details submitted by authors, but rather search forproper academic e-mail addresses themselves, said Wager. Some journals include this in their editorial guidelines, and other institutions recommend it as best practice. But there are other ways to game the system.

Tumor Biology changed hands in January, and the new publishers, SAGE, were aware of the problems when they took over. [Springer] were open about the past instances of peer review fraud, and as part of the relaunch they wanted to address the underlying reasons, a SAGE spokesperson told Retraction Watch. The Tumor Biology editorial team have already introduced new robust peer review practices expected from all SAGE journals. However, this doesnt necessarily mean no more retractions for the journal, since investigations like this recent one mayturn up more dirt from the past.

See original here:
107 cancer papers retracted due to peer review fraud - Ars Technica